68 replies to this topic

[Shane]

Ofc, the key to getting a good position in the market is to make Mario's hat bounce. They will buy your game for sure. :thinking:

 

Kidding, of course. Because adding more frames to an animation or adding more pixels to a sprite isn't going to increase your chances of people playing your game. That's an incredibly naive and simplistic way to view the market. There's tons and tons of factors that also count, the critical one being pure luck in getting exposure. Undertale didn't sell and become a big hit for it's 12 frame animations now, did it?

 

Also making a game overanimated can be a valid critique. Again, sometimes less is more, there is simply no way one can argue that there is only one way to make a game visually impressive (i.e adding as many frames and pixels as possible).

[Koh]

I never claimed that they're the only things that matter, but I did say they go a long way for first impressions.  The analogy that I used is going to an interview with a wrinkled polo versus an ironed polo.  The former will get your interviewer to take you less seriously and brush you off easier, because it looks like you put less care into it.  You only get one chance to make a good first impression.  Whether or not you actually take it is your choice

[Shane]

You seem to care a lot about it though going as far as to debate this in two threads and constantly doubling down that anything less is just lazy and won't get taken seriously (which is pretty much wrong, no matter what analogy you use). There are many ways to get good solid first impressions. Like a unique and/or nice visual art style, unique and/or solid gameplay, positive reviews, etc. If people prioritize 12 frames of animation over every other aspect of game design, then that's just foolish expectations but I somehow have this feeling people won't refuse to play your game because it has 4 frames of animation for your character.

 

Again, no one is arguing adding extra frames is bad (though it depends how you use these frames), but it's far from a requirement to get taken seriously. It's the same way some powerful movie scenes don't add music when in theory they could have, because if they don't have music, is that laziness and showing they don't care? No, it's a conscious decision made and there's nothing inherently wrong with it and in most cases it can prove effective.

[Anthus]

I'll admit, the first impression thing is kind of true, but what if they are only seeing a still screenshot on a Steam page? You can't see much in the way of animations there. Also, as far as speaking as a consumer, I'm not going to go on a store page, and say "Whoaa, what, Celeste only has four frames, this game sucks". I'm going to say "Oh, wow, this looks like a really fun platformer". I feel like the average consumers (read: NOT huge nerds like us who discuss this stuff on a fan-game board) aren't aware of things like "frame count", or "pixel consistency". One other thing I'll agree on is I do hate it when pixel art games have inconsistent sizes with pixels, or with HUD elements. Mostly how mobile games have smooth text with pixel graphics. Now, that is glaring, and looks like shit. It's not enough to make me not play a game though (Being a mobile game does that instead ).

 

I'm not saying that you are wrong, cause you do have a couple valid points, but I just think that as others have said, not everyone will care as much about the small details. I think some people (myself included) can get a bit rustled when a fellow hobbiest game designer comes along, and says "If you don't put in this amount of effort, and do it this way, you are doing it wrong, and your game will fail". I know you obviously take illustration, and animation very seriously (and you do good work) but sadly not everyone is on that same level, and therefore may prioritize other aspects of game design closer to their own interests above it. You focus on this stuff cause it is what you love. Others may love making levels, implementing physics, and puzzles, or writing the stories, or doing sound, and all of those people would likely say that the thing they love most is the most important aspect. Not always, but people tend to defend what they love.. Hence this thread. 

 

And to call people lazy is another triggering blanket statement. As NoeL mentioned, it can be a style choice. And like Dimentio said, sometimes more frames isn't so great. This is why, for example, I'm don't use Z3 animation in ZC. Sure, it looks better, but in ZC, Link is the only thing that would have more than four frames, so it would look jarring and inconsistent. You may say I'm lazy for not re-programming the game from the ground up to use more frames, but since I'm just one guy, with next to no coding experience, that is not going to happen. I'd argue that this is a "limitation" too. Not a hardware limit, but a limitation on what I, or anyone, could do by themselves. 

[Koh]

You'd be correct....if the market weren't so oversaturated as I mentioned before.  A unique art style can and will draw them to your game, yes, hence Cuphead.  But if you're going to just have a generic looking 8-bit or 16-bit style, then the next step is how everything looks and moves within that style.  Your gameplay trailers on the landing page of your Steam store page will show this next.  Okay, so it's a standard turn-based RPG, and it has standard 16-bit sprites, but are the sprites at least very expressive and well animated, and the world very lush and detailed?  Nope?  So well, why should I play this rather mediocre looking turn-based RPG, when I can go and play Suikoden II or Breath of Fire III or IV on PS1, and get a much better looking turn-based RPG game?  This is the situation you're dealing with these days.  You're competing with a VERY large market, and you can either show the passerbys that you're up to the challenge, or that you're just another budget and standard indie title.

 

Another way to look at it is this:  We've been exposed to and spoiled by better now, within almost every kind of art style you can think of.  8-bit, 16-bit, water color, vector art, flash art, handdrawn art, we've seen some top notch quality things in almost every category.  So when another game comes along in any of these categories, it already has something of high tier to compete with.  It doesn't have to win, but in order to be impressed, or at least have your attention grasped, it needs to come somewhat close doesn't it?  Otherwise, we'd see MS Paint looking games on the front page of Steam.

Edited by Koh, 20 June 2018 - 07:53 PM.

[coolgamer012345]

I don't like turn based RPGs that are overanimated.

[Koh]

Define overanimated?  Do you mean like, smooth animations (not high frame count, just smooth)?  Or do you mean overly LONG animations, like Final Fantasy 7's Supernova?  

 

The Mario and Luigi series are great examples of well animated turn-based RPG games that both look great and play great, but don't have LONG animations. Just smooth animations.

 

Edited by Koh, 20 June 2018 - 08:07 PM.

[Anthus]

Where do you get all these .gifs?

[coolgamer012345]

I was referring to graphics being too smooth. My reasoning being that having super high-res next-gen-pc supercomputer graphics feels very wrong to me to be paired with a turn based battle system, since there's a massive disconnect between what you see and how you're able to act.

[Koh]

Where do you get all these .gifs?

Google is your friend~  Searching say, Chrono Trigger Sprite Gif

 

 

@BlueTophat

I'm afraid I don't understand.  In terms of the genre being related to the animation quality in that way.  I can totally understand say, animations feeling like they play out too long in a realtime game, because then it makes the controls feel delayed and like the animations are physically hindering the gameplay.  But in terms of it being a turn-based RPG, and by virtue of that fact, it can't look well animated...you're the first one I've heard say that.  Would you mind explaining more?  Maybe I can understand better why this is? 

[NoeL]

I was referring to graphics being too smooth. My reasoning being that having super high-res next-gen-pc supercomputer graphics feels very wrong to me to be paired with a turn based battle system, since there's a massive disconnect between what you see and how you're able to act.

And this goes back to what I said in the other thread about having animations that match the character. Old-school JRPGs are locked to the grid with very stiff movement, and it's important to match that tactile feedback with visual feedback or you risk things feeling disconnected (which is why walk cycles in these games are typically bland-looking, even with 4+ frames). A common problem that can result from this is "floatiness", where characters appear to lack weight because how they look and how they feel aren't in sync. Marriage between look and feel (and sound) is more important than looks alone.

 

To reiterate what Shane said, overall aesthetic >>>>>>>>>> polish. As the saying goes, you can't polish a turd. An engaging aesthetic or gameplay hook is going to help your game sell more than extra animation frames possibly could.

[Koh]

That is true yes, regarding the aesthetic, which is why I keep bringing up Cuphead and Shovel Knight, because they killed in those departments.  They have it all.  Wonderful aesthetics AND animations.  There's no need to settle for one or the other, when you can easily have both, after all.

 

But again, I'm not understanding the argument of good animation and say, being a turn based RPG means they can't work.  Are we going to sit here and say Chrono Trigger, for example, is jarring because it has good animations, but is a turn based game?  Because I've not yet heard a single person say that ever.  Nor for Mario and Luigi.

[coolgamer012345]

I mainly meant that a turn based RPG is inherently a bit clunky (I don't mean this in a bad way, mind you), since you're navigating through menus and whatnot for most of the stuff you actually do, so having super smooth graphics to go along with it feels weird because the smooth animations don't match up with how clunkily you physically play the game. I think it's a case where the player should be allowed to fill in missing details with their imagination, since actually putting stuff there (eg. an extra few frames) just leads to disconnect. As NoeL said earlier, some games go with a style of graphics that represent things rather than actually look like things. Turn styled combat feels much, much more like a "representative" type of gameplay rather than tactile, and it helps a lot when the graphics actually match that.

[NoeL]

There's no need to settle for one or the other, when you can easily have both, after all.

This is false though. You can't "easily" have both - each require work and resources. You can have both, sure, but only in a fantasy land with unlimited time and money is there no cost to doing so. Cuphead took several years and a substantial budget to get made, because it turns out having a good-looking 30's animation aesthetic isn't easy. If they hadn't scored a deal with Microsoft the studio would've tanked. Most studios - particularly fledglings and one-man operations - don't have those options.

 

If you're a hobbyist that doesn't mind spending a decade on a pet project, fine - spend as much time polishing as you want. Do it for the art. If you're a commercial developer, or an inspiring one trying to break into the industry (which is the context of your argument), you're almost NEVER going to ship a "complete" game. You need to get the product to market in a state that can (ideally) recoup your development costs and earn enough profit to fund the development of your next game. If you're going to spend an extra year's budget on polish that polish needs to earn you that money back and then some, otherwise it's a bad investment. Make too many bad investments and you're out of the industry. Just like any commercial endeavour, sacrifices and concessions are all part of the game. Even with AAA games content is cut when including it becomes a bad investment. Nintendo could have finished those Wind Waker dungeons, but at that stage it wasn't economically worth it to do so, so they were cut.

 

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not advocating cutting quality in order to rush things to market. You still need both a standard of quality and a market niche in order to sell your game in the first place, so flooding the market with cheap shit isn't usually a sustainable business model (see Guitar Hero, Digital Homicide).

Edited by NoeL, 20 June 2018 - 09:38 PM.

[Koh]

Yes I agree, but not all of it is hard to obtain, or at least, requires an obstinate amount of work and/or time. There's a lot of low hanging fruit, like say, if you're not going to have smooth animations, then at least having animations for each discernable action that the characters take. Jumping up and down, pulling levers, opening doors, etc. Rather than them just looking like they're standing still or walking the whole time. Even a solo guy can make say 2 frame animations for all these in like an hour or two. This is where it can start to look rushed, cheap or lazy, when even the low hanging fruit hasn't been picked.